NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0637n.06 Case No. 19-3234 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Dec 27, 2019 GENARO BERNARDINO MURILLO, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General ) APPEALS ) Respondent. ) OPINION BEFORE: COLE, Chief Judge; SILER and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. COLE, Chief Judge. Genaro Bernardino Murillo (“Bernardino”) seeks review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application for cancellation of removal. Congress, however, has severely restricted our ability to review orders denying cancellation of removal. Our limited jurisdiction means that in this case we have no ability to review Bernardino’s unexhausted due-process claim, and his other claims for relief—regardless of their merit—are futile. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition in part for lack of jurisdiction and otherwise deny the petition. I. Bernardino is a native of Mexico. He first entered the United States without authorization in 1995. In 1998, he went back to Mexico for about two months. Upon his return to the United Case No. 19-3234, Bernardino Murillo v. Barr States, he attempted to gain entry with a fake birth certificate but was turned away and returned to Mexico following expedited removal proceedings. The next day Bernardino crossed the border without authorization and has since remained in the United States. In the last two decades, he has purchased a house with his wife in New Carlisle, Ohio; started his own business; and raised a family, including five biological children and three adopted children. All eight of his children are United States citizens. In December 2009, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Bernardino by issuing a Notice to Appear. Bernardino made an appearance in the immigration court in Cleveland, conceded removability, and applied for cancellation of removal under Section 240A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). He provided over four hundred pages of documents in support of his application. On May 21, 2012, Bernardino testified at an individual hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). Following the 2012 hearing, more than five years passed without a decision on Bernardino’s application. In the interim, the original IJ retired, and a new IJ took over the case. On September 29, 2017, the new IJ issued a decision and order denying Bernardino’s application for cancellation of removal. Based solely on a review of the record and without holding a new hearing, the new IJ determined that Bernardino lacked credibility “due to inconsistencies between his application and his testimony” five years prior. (IJ Decision, AR 91.) The IJ moreover concluded that even if Bernardino were credible, his application would still be denied because he had failed to establish “good moral character,” had not demonstrated “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” and, in any event, did not qualify for cancellation of removal “as a matter of discretion.” (IJ Decision, AR 92–95.) -2- Case No. 19-3234, Bernardino Murillo v. Barr ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals